|
SamDabbers posted:I did explain, in detail, why access fees are a problem, and why the traffic ratio argument is erroneous. Customers are paying the ISPs to maintain an acceptable level of service to the whole Internet. It'd be different if Netflix was paying Comcast for transit, just like they were/are with Cogent, but as you can see, Comcast doesn't appear anywhere in the list of peers, which suggests that Comcast is not providing transit to Netflix. Ignoring the question of if it is right or not, Cogent always had the option of terminating peering AND (any) transit connections with Comcast if they felt they were not getting value out of the contract they had signed to settlement free interconnect the networks. The one thing most people forget about peering agreements is that they are formal contracts that have formal terms. If those terms are traffic ratios, a nanog vote means nothing about how the businesses in question are going to treat that traffic at that peering point. The other point that I will make is around hot-potato / cold-potato routing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-potato_and_cold-potato_routing). Cogent and Level 3 can bring on the traffic from Netflix to their network at literally the same router they drop the traffic off onto Comcast, leaving Comcast to carry the traffic for the longest bit miles and thus actually take the brunt of the expense for transporting that data. This is why settlement free peering contracts do not work for large asymmetric flows, and why the SENDER of the data pays, not the receiver.
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 20:41 |
|